Talk:Santa's 9th Reindeer
How about the 1948 Rudolph cartoon? It's public domain as well. LogiTeeka (talk) 23:55, January 10, 2017 (UTC) :Is he ever referred to as "Santa's 9th reindeer" in it?Cebr1979 (talk) 23:58, January 10, 2017 (UTC) ::(That's a rhetorical question. Since I've added it to pages today, I'm clearly aware of it. Also, it's from 1944. Your YouTube link is wrong)Cebr1979 (talk) 00:04, January 11, 2017 (UTC) This character is copyrighted with all rights reserved and so must not be in the wiki. First off, the basic concept of “Santa’s ninth reindeer” may theoretically be in the public domain, but so is “Santa’s first reindeer,” “Santa’s second reindeer” etc. There is no attribute unique to the ninth reindeer without using one of Rudolph’s (copyrighted) attributes. In fact, L. Frank Baum gave Santa Claus ten reindeer, so Ready is really the ninth. “Rudolph the Red‐Nosed Reindeer was created in 1939 … and his first appearance was renewed in its 28th year, meaning the name ‘Rudolph the Red‐Nosed Reindeer’ cannot be used without permission. However, an unnamed reindeer with a red nose (or a reindeer with a red nose and a different name) can appear in other works.” This is incorrect. You’re essentially saying that the copyright protects the name (which it doesn’t), but that the character can otherwise be used however one wishes: So long as one attribute is left out (the red nose, the name etc.), then “technically … one couldn’t be sued.” This is groundless, even reckless, legal advice. Of course someone could be sued for using a copyrighted character! “The earliest mention of the term ‘Santa's 9th Reindeer’ is in the 1964 special Rudolph the Red‐Nosed Reindeer ….” Might you provide some proof of this? I found evidence of a 1950s radio program called “The Ninth Reindeer,” perhaps about Santa’s reindeer. I believe Superman and Wonder Woman have appeared in works published by the US government that are technically in the public domain, but that does not mean the characters are in the public domain. It would be incorrect to create a page called “Amazon Princess” and tell people that the character of Wonder Woman can be used however one wants so long as the magic lasso is left out of the story and the name Wonder Woman is not used. “Technically, no one can own the name Diana so, without it being preceded by ‘Princess’ … technically … one couldn’t be sued.” Then I could list her real name in the info‐box as being “Diana (sort of).” I recommend this page for speedy deletion. ElyaqimNYC (talk) 07:45, January 12, 2017 (UTC) :“Santa’s first reindeer,” “Santa’s second reindeer” is stupid and I think you're just throwing a tantrum at this point. The second sentence states "However, he has been popularly (and, more importantly, generically) referred to as "Santa's 9th Reindeer." Technically, "Prince Rude" would be in the public domain. Do we have a page for such a thing? No. Why? Because it's stupid and Prince Charming is the only one anyone has heard of. Also, Ready has never been popularly referred to as "Santa's 9th Reindeer" so, no. He's not "really" anything. :Might I provide some proof of what? If you found an older appearance, fantastic! Why not update the page instead of coming here where the info is useless... again? :"I believe Superman and Wonder Woman have appeared in works published by the US government that are technically in the public domain, but that does not mean the characters are in the public domain." :They've also appeared elsewhere that's public domain. So take the Green Lama and change his codename to Green Jet or Magga the Magnificent. Take Atoman and make Atomaster (or maybe the other way around, I can't remember which one came first and I don't care to look). :"It would be incorrect to create a page called “Amazon Princess” and tell people that the character of Wonder Woman can be used however one wants so long as the magic lasso is left out of the story and the name Wonder Woman is not used. “Technically, no one can own the name Diana so, without it being preceded by ‘Princess’ … technically … one couldn’t be sued.” Then I could list her real name in the info‐box as being “Diana (sort of).” :Yes, you could!. That's exactly how it does work. That's exactly why rip-off characters exist. :The page isn't going anywhere. Everything in it (except, possibly the first appearance, which I stated when I did it) is technically correct but, could be risky. :I'm not here to offer legal advice. I created a page merely for logging purposes. That's what we're here for! Every page should basically be a FAQ about that character. Plain and simple! So, now: we have a FAQ page about a character popularly referred to as Santa's 9th Reindeer. :I said I was doing it two days ago and you have been here since and you definitely would have gotten the notifications telling you I was doing this and you could have said something then about your nonsense "Santa's first reindeer" and L. Frank Baum's stupid reindeer being unpopularly referred to as the ninth but, no. You waited until I was done because you can't put other languages in an infobox or say that James Rees created Bessie when he didn't. Whatever.Cebr1979 (talk) 12:01, January 12, 2017 (UTC) ::In regards to "However, an unnamed reindeer with a red nose (or a reindeer with a red nose and a different name) can appear in other works..." ::"A red nose" can't be copyrighted. Whether it's a reindeer, a clown, or a drunken idiot on a cold day: it just can't. The Wicked Witch of the West did not have green skin until the famous (and very-much still copyrighted) MGM movie was released but, skin color can't be copyrighted so can still be used by others.Cebr1979 (talk) 23:40, January 12, 2017 (UTC) :::"You’re essentially saying that the copyright protects the name (which it doesn’t)..." :::Okay, so my "...meaning the name "Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer' cannot be used without permission..." comment needs either re-worded or have something added to it (I'll give it some thought to come up with something better) but, for example: Red cannot be copyrighted. Rubies cannot be copyrighted. Slippers cannot be copyrighted. :::...and YET: you make a movie with red slippers made out of rubies and call them "Ruby Red Slippers..." You're F'd! You make a movie with "Scarlet-Shaded Gem-Stone Flats" and you're A-OK!Cebr1979 (talk) 23:49, January 12, 2017 (UTC) * Are varient names okay to use? Names like Rolf, Rudy, or Roul? I imagine some people will get pretty tired of constantly using the term "Santa's 9th Reindeer". LogiTeeka (talk) 22:01, January 12, 2017 (UTC) **Why don't you go read the first note in the notes section...Cebr1979 (talk) 22:26, January 12, 2017 (UTC) Perhaps he is “popularly (and … generically) referred to as ‘Santa’s 9th Reindeer’,” not that I recall ever hearing it. He’s even more popularly referred to as Rudolph. What does this have to do with the public domain? Superman is very popularly referred to as the Man of Steel, but he’s still copyrighted. That something is popular or generic does not automatically place it in the public domain. You can also name all the different aspects of a copyrighted character that supposedly cannot be copyrighted, but when you start putting them all (or nearly all) together, you enter the territory of copyright infringement. (But apparently you also feel “rip‐off characters” are appropriate for this site while I do not.) Moreover, my writing on this talk page has nothing to do with languages in info‐boxes; I make edits of different sizes when I have time for them and writing here required more time for composition. (I was also not entirely certain what you even meant by “mere logging purposes.”) I have explained why I feel this Rudolph article is a bad idea, and if you don’t agree, you don’t agree. I explain things once and move on because they’re not terribly important to me in the long run. Take (or don’t take) whatever actions you want. —ElyaqimNYC (talk) 00:09, January 13, 2017 (UTC) :Trademarks? Yes, actually, it does. Copyrights? Open to debate (which is something we've been doing here for years now). Again, we're not here to be lawyers. We're here to offer up what is/could be in the public domain and explain/offer our reasonings. Again: each page should be a FAQ for people. So, if someone comes here looking for "Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer," they now have the info on what they could technically use but, they have also been told it would be risky. Should they decide to stop at that point... probably for the best! Should they decide to continue... their problem, not ours! We're human and mistakes happen. For example: If someone sees a character we've said has no last name (or a wrong last name) and simply decides to believe us without double checking... again: their problem, not ours (even after we've found we were wrong and the character had a last name the whole time). If we say a certain codename existed and, later find out, it didn't... Hurray for the error being fixed! As I have said, this page exists merely for logging purposes. Lastly, "entering the territory of..." is not the same as infringing upon copyright. It's a gray area, sure/of course, but, as I've already pointed out, we've doing that for years.Cebr1979 (talk) 00:48, January 13, 2017 (UTC) (...merely easing tension 'cause I literally LOL'd at the coincidentalness is that even a word? of this popping up in my facebook newsfeed just now...) :-) Cebr1979 (talk) 05:51, January 13, 2017 (UTC) The first line in the Notes section says it all. If the first appearance was renewed, its not public domain. Your new creation could possibly have a red nose (?), but it cannot light up. I say delete. --Raydog (talk) 01:37, January 19, 2017 (UTC) :Except that's not what the first line says and I'm not going down this road again.Cebr1979 (talk) 01:39, January 19, 2017 (UTC)